TL;DR
Get business pricing on tools and workshop supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
Interior designers at SPELK. say clients increasingly bring AI-generated room images that depict products, layouts or construction details that cannot be reproduced in real homes. The Livingetc report describes how designers are responding with clearer labels and behind-the-scenes evidence, while questions remain about disclosure and detection on social platforms.
Interior designers say AI-generated room images are reaching client consultations as if they were workable designs, even when the furniture is unavailable, the layout violates building requirements or parts of the room could not function. In a report for Livingetc, designers Kelly and Graeme Smith of SPELK. describe spending time explaining why some images clients have saved cannot be built as shown, a growing challenge as AI visuals circulate alongside photographs of completed homes.
The designers describe a change in the way clients present ideas: from magazine clippings and Pinterest boards to fully formed room images generated from a photograph and a prompt. The images can look like finished interiors, but their appearance does not prove that the objects exist or that the space has been constructed. The Smiths say they have seen designs with doors that cannot open and drawers without room to slide out, as well as products that cannot be purchased.
The Livingetc report does not quantify how common these cases are across the industry. It presents the experience of one design studio and explains that clients may save or share an AI image without knowing it is synthetic. The designers say they now have to distinguish visual inspiration from a buildable plan and show prospective clients that their work includes procurement, budgets, scheduling and coordination with tradespeople—not just creating an attractive image.
The studio says it labels AI images and 3D visualisations when it shares them, while recognizing that viewers may scroll past captions. To show that projects are real, it photographs work in progress, films people on site and includes designers in images. The Smiths also describe leaving some ordinary signs of use in finished photographs, such as mail on a surface or a coat on a chair, instead of making every image appear perfectly staged.
Why Clients Need More Than a Rendering
The issue affects how homeowners judge what a designer can deliver. A convincing image can set expectations before anyone checks whether the design fits the room, the budget or building rules. If a client mistakes a generated image for a completed project, they may expect a particular sofa, layout or finish that cannot be supplied or reproduced. The report does not document a specific financial loss or dispute, but it describes a new source of friction in the early stages of design work.
It also complicates how studios present their experience online. A portfolio image can imply that a room has been built, even if it only shows a concept. The Smiths’ response—showing construction stages, people and less-polished details—underscores that evidence of project delivery can matter alongside visual polish. That distinction is relevant to clients comparing designers, and to designers whose finished work takes longer and costs more to produce than a steady stream of online images suggests.
AI-generated interior design visualization tools
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Mood Boards to Generated Rooms
The designers describe AI imagery as a new step in a longer shift in how people collect references. Clients once brought torn magazine pages and later used digital Pinterest boards. Now, they may arrive with a complete-looking room made by an image-generation tool. The new feature is not simply digital inspiration: the image may depict a scene that has never existed, while resembling a photograph of a completed project.
The report says the studio’s work begins with the realities of how people use and live in a space. It also notes that interior projects move slowly and can be expensive, limiting how often studios can publish photographs of newly completed work. That creates pressure to keep social feeds active, but the source does not establish how many designers post AI images or how frequently clients mistake them for real projects.
The designers say metadata can sometimes offer clues about an image’s origins, but that information can be removed. They also report that platforms are beginning to use detection systems and ask users to label AI material, while tagging remains optional. The source mentions an EU legal backdrop but its supplied text ends before explaining the relevant rules, so it does not establish what requirements apply to particular images or posts.
““Can you make that?””
— Kelly and Graeme Smith of SPELK., as quoted by Livingetc
Disclosure and Detection Remain Uneven
The report does not measure how often clients mistake AI images for completed projects, how many designers use generated visuals, or whether the practice has led to documented disputes. It also does not identify specific image-generation tools or provide an independent test of the designers’ examples. The evidence presented is the Smiths’ account of their own practice, not a survey of the wider industry.
It remains unclear how reliably platforms can identify AI images, since the report says metadata may be stripped and user labels are optional. The source excerpt refers to EU law but does not provide its details, so the legal obligations around disclosure cannot be established from the material provided. Nor is it clear whether platform policies or regulations will change how studios label concepts and completed projects.
How Studios Show Work Is Real
The immediate response described by SPELK. is to make the evidence of a project more visible: label concepts, photograph construction, film people on site and include details that would be unlikely to appear in a flawless generated scene. For clients, the practical next step is to ask whether an image shows a completed project, a rendering or an AI concept, and to confirm that proposed products and layouts can be sourced and built.
The report does not identify a coming industry-wide rule or a scheduled policy change. The next development will depend on how design studios, clients and online platforms handle disclosure as generated images become more common. Until then, a polished interior image alone does not confirm that the room exists or can be reproduced; project documentation and specific, buildable plans remain necessary to establish what a designer can deliver.
Key Questions
What is the problem designers describe?
Clients may bring AI-generated rooms that look complete but are not practical or buildable. The report gives examples such as unavailable furniture, doors that cannot open and drawers without space to move.
Are all AI interior images intended to mislead?
No. The designers say many people may share or save images without realizing they are AI-generated. They also say their studio labels AI images and visualisations it posts, while noting that viewers can miss captions.
How does SPELK. show that a project is real?
The studio says it shares construction-stage photographs and video, includes people in images and leaves some everyday details visible. It presents these as ways to show work beyond a polished finished-room image.
Can viewers reliably detect AI room images?
The report offers no reliable detection method. It says metadata may be removed and that platform detection and optional self-labeling are developing, so an image’s appearance or metadata alone may not settle its origin.
What should clients ask before using an image as a design brief?
Ask whether it shows a real completed project, a rendering or an AI-generated concept. Then check whether the products, dimensions, layout and construction details can be verified for the actual home.
Source: rss
Fall yard work Picks
leaf blowers
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
